The English King James Bible printed 1611 is perfect, no errors down to the very numbers, another proof Deut. 16:11.

@ArishMell There hasn't been any editing of King James version. That is why it is the most read and the most studied.

@Carazaa Ah, I didn't say there has been though I think there are versions in more modern English. Most of the editing, including selecting which books to include and in what order, was done in ages past.

@Carazaa Pity they - and you in your verifying the translations of translations - kept missing the one about pi, then! :-)

[Early architectural gilders would not bothered about 3.141592654,,, X D; but may well have known the Circumference is never 3 X Diameter! Their columns were unlikely to have been very accurately cut anyway. They'd most likely have done what you or I would do: wrap the leaf around the column and cut it along the overlap! It wasn't the craftsmen who wrote the story though, but some scribe and later translators with a pernickety view of perfection, who put their own error in it.

The Mediaeval transcribers had two attitudes to Biblical times and lands, preventing any critical examination; so they would not have simply dropped this silly geometrical mistake. The first was an unfailing faith in scriptural "accuracy" and their own abilities. The second was thinking the pre-Christian places and cultures were no different from their own, as Mediaeval art strikingly shows. We know it is a mistake, just as we know some OT passages are pure myths or allegories; but keep it for purely poetic and historical reasons.

Glass bottles? I don't know, but I think the Romans did have glass; so perhaps hand-blown glass bottles in the lands they occupied or traded with, were feasible. They did know pottery-glazing and used it for example, in making mosaic-tiles, so the Biblical reference might be a misinterpretation of [i]glazed[/i] rather than glass as such. ]

@Carazaa [quote]please.... when it says birds and bats it is not saying bats are birds.[/quote]
Leviticus 11:13, [i]King James version:[/i]
[quote]13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe [c=800000]and the bat.[/c][/quote]
Emphasis mine, obviously. However, this proves that the Bible you claim is absolutely perfect lists the bat as a sort of bird.

[quote]There are absolutely no errors in the 1611 KJB...[/quote]
Then tell me which version of this verse is accurate, considering the availability of glass in the first century.
Luke 5:37

KJV:
"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish."

NKJV:

"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined."

[quote]You have been deceived![/quote]
No. Your deception has failed.

Update: Edited to remove erroneously included duplicate paragraph, with my apologies for the error.

@DalisMoustache "Translation itself is an art. As far as translations of any ancient text, new knowledge is always coming to hand.
[quote]new knowledge is always coming to hand.[/quote]

[b]God never changes![/b]

Take Psalm 16 verse 9:-

The KJV has:-

Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.

Which sounds fine if read quickly with a pious heart....😀 Yet what exactly does[quote] "my glory rejoiceth" mean?[/quote]

[b]It means feeling joy and delight in God's salvation![/b]

It is now known that the ancient Hebrews associated different parts of the body with various emotions, much as we still associate the heart with love. In the original Hebrew the word "liver" was that which rejoiced! The KJV translators, ignorant that the liver was for the ancient Hebrews thought of as the seat and source of praise/honour simply used "glory" (rather than "liver") even though it makes no sense at all - they only thought "well, we can't translate it as my liver rejoiceth"!

Simply a poor translation. An error, born of lack of knowledge.

A newer, more modern translation:-

Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure.

We live and learn.....or not.[/quote]"
[quote]A newer, more modern translation:-[/quote]

[b]Yes I have used newer NIV etc, but the point is that when we study, there are things that certainly God intended to be different than newer more modern language intended, like word count, verses, and capitalizations that have meanings that are missed in some languages or newer English versions. All Bibles include Jesus death and resurrection. But if we want to study in depth, like God's different names then KJB is probably best as this video shares.[/b]

@Carazaa You simply avoid the point that the KJV is not "perfect". Your reading of the words is the "pious heart" I spoke of. I explained its actual meaning and exactly [i]why[/i] the KJV is WRONG.

Sorry, but true [i]depth[/i] comes via the spirit, which [i]blows where it will[/i]. It does not need the KJV or anything else.

@DalisMoustache I agree that The Holy Spirit is saving, but so is the word because the word became flesh!

@Carazaa OK, put your trust in a video.

There is no end to videos, all pushing a whole host of beliefs.

You only need to "sample" Grace once.

@DalisMoustache I put my trust in Jesus!

@Carazaa Jesusainity!

😀

@Diotrephes So what year did the Geneva Bible come out? What year was it first published? You don't mention that in your summary. You say it's 50 years older. 50 years older than which? The original 1611? The 1768? The 1880s?

@LordShadowfire If you noticed, I gave you the link to the article so that you could read it for yourself and maybe gain some insight on the subject. That way you can always refer to it at your convenience when you have questions.

A condensed answer to your question is that the Geneva Bible was written in 1560.

"The New Testament was completed in 1557, and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. It became known as the Geneva Bible. Due to a passage in Genesis describing the clothing that God fashioned for Adam and Eve upon expulsion from the Garden of Eden as “Breeches” (an antiquated form of “Britches”), some people referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible.

The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add numbered verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English “Study Bible”. William Shakespeare quotes hundreds of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible.

The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians. [b][i][c=BF0000]Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published. Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any other source.[/c][/i][/b] The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale’s original English translation. The Geneva in fact, remained more popular than the King James Version until decades after its original release in 1611! The Geneva holds the honor of being the first Bible taken to America, and the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. It is truly the “Bible of the Protestant Reformation.” Strangely, the famous Geneva Bible has been out-of-print since 1644, so the only way to obtain one is to either purchase an original printing of the Geneva Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1560 Geneva Bible.

With the end of Queen Mary’s bloody reign, the reformers could safely return to England. The Anglican Church, now under Queen Elizabeth I, reluctantly tolerated the printing and distribution of Geneva version Bibles in England."
https://greatsite.com/english-bible-history/

[b][i][c=BF0000]Geneva Bible[/c][/i][/b]
"The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years.[1] It was the primary Bible of 16th century English Protestantism and was used by William Shakespeare,[2] Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne and others. It was one of the Bibles taken to America on the Mayflower (Pilgrim Hall Museum has collected several Bibles of Mayflower passengers). The Geneva Bible was used by many English Dissenters, and it was still respected by Oliver Cromwell's soldiers at the time of the English Civil War, in the booklet The Souldiers Pocket Bible.[3]

This version of the Bible is significant because, for the first time, a mechanically printed, mass-produced Bible was made available directly to the general public which came with a variety of scriptural study guides and aids (collectively called an apparatus), which included verse citations that allow the reader to cross-reference one verse with numerous relevant verses in the rest of the Bible, introductions to each book of the Bible that acted to summarize all of the material that each book would cover, maps, tables, woodcut illustrations and indices.

Because the language of the Geneva Bible was more forceful and vigorous, most readers strongly preferred this version to the Great Bible. In the words of Cleland Boyd McAfee, "it drove the Great Bible off the field by sheer power of excellence".[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible#Modern_spelling_version_of_the_1599_Geneva_Bible

@Diotrephes [quote]If you noticed, I gave you the link to the article so that you could read it for yourself and maybe gain some insight on the subject. That way you can always refer to it at your convenience when you have questions.[/quote]
I noticed, after I posted that question. Just didn't feel like deleting it. Been dealing with some bullshit all day.

@ShadowDancer King James version was printed 1611 and then it was translated to every tongue to get the word of God out as it says in Deut 16:11. God ordained the year in Deut 16:11 Before KJB there was no THE LORD in the Bible distinction between Jehovah and Adonai. LORD, and Lord

@BritishFailedAesthetic how are they good if they are missing entire verses & have reworded many they kept?

@SamInAZ It is God breathed! Every verse and every word and every number has meanings in the ENGLISH King James Bible because it was intended to be the Bible going out to the [b]entire world in year 1611 [/b]as it says his name will be proclaimed in[b] Deutoronomy 16:11[/b]

@BritishFailedAesthetic They are good, but there are some significant differences like LORD is Jehovah in KJB and Lord is Elohim. In all the others they are the same which means that in 1611 God wanted LORD, Jehovah, and Lord, Elohim to be ttyped and the standard for every nation, among other differences like word count of each sentence word and number etc. English trumped Hebrew and Greek after 1611 in the last days because we are searching out every meaning like never before!

@PhilDeep NO. It is translated to other languages yes but the King James Bible is the standard all over the world and The LORD made it happen year 1611 as he said in Deotoronomy 16:11

@Carazaa Ah, okay, you're referring to that translation. Thanks for clarifying :)

@ServantOfTheGoddess He wanted to troll everybody who lived and died before that book came out by sending them to hell for following the wrong version.

@ServantOfTheGoddess A good question! Obviously "he" did not.

The printing press and mass literacy has created the sheer "confusion of tongues" among our fundamentalist friends, whose literalist reading of the text has helped to drive many people away from religion.

@SW-User Yes, I think a lot of so called "religious" threads sound very much like a Monty Python sketch.

😀

@DalisMoustache Always look on the bright side ....:)